[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Wed Oct 5 08:39:43 EDT 2016

I basically gave up on Russia DX when I had my score knocked down 
because I supposedly worked stations that were "not in the contest".  
Not in the contest?  WTF.

I worked them; LoTW confirms I worked them.  How could they not be in 
the contest?

73 Rich NN3W

On 10/4/2016 9:31 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> The silence from the RDXC folks is deafening.  Not that I ever 
> operated it seriously, but unless they come forward and explain their 
> position reasonably I think they may find that participation may drop 
> in the future.
>
>
>
> On 10/4/2016 4:48 PM, Juan EA5RS wrote:
>> Ionospheric skywave signal amplitude or strength is a time-varying 
>> random
>> variable with a mean and a standard deviation.
>>
>> Difference between strengths of two signals is also a random variable 
>> with
>> an even higher standard deviation, even when originated from the same
>> location (ever heard of antenna diversity or stacks?), even when 
>> originated
>> from the same antenna on even very closely spaced frequencies (ever 
>> noticed
>> selective fading e.g. on 170 Hz FSK ionospheric signals?). Let alone 
>> when
>> signals originate from different QTHs spaced several kilometers and from
>> different antennas.
>>
>> I am not saying RBN data is not useful or meaningful, but to draw a 
>> strong
>> conclusion you have to be sure you take into account that variability.
>> Based on all variables involved and all possible side-effects, I 
>> doubt you
>> can assess TX power differences below 10-15 dB with a reasonable 
>> degree of
>> confidence just based on RBN data.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents
>>
>> 73, Juan EA5RS
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] En nombre 
>> de Pete
>> Smith N4ZR
>> Enviado el: martes, 04 de octubre de 2016 17:16
>> Para: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>>
>> Just filling in one bit of info - the RBN-based "evidence" received 
>> from the
>> RDXC did not compare signal reports among multiple RBN nodes, which 
>> would
>> have been meaningless for all the reasons Mike enumerated. They used the
>> Signal Analysis Tool, which limits each comparison to a single RBN node.
>>
>> Even doing same-node comparisons would require knowledge of the 
>> dozen-plus
>> variables that can affect the reported SNR at any given moment. N2QT
>> identified one of the most important and disruptive ones - a much 
>> stronger
>> calling station in near zero-beat, but there are a variety of 
>> others.  Using
>> these data to assert that Bob was using high power "for 5 or 10 
>> minutes" now
>> and then is simply absurd.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
>> <http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
>> out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>> <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
>> spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
>> For spots, please use your favorite
>> "retail" DX cluster.
>>
>> On 10/2/2016 11:03 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>> Using RBN to attempt to prove a power violation alone is absurd.
>>>
>>> We already know that the antennas are different.   4 Square vs Mono
>>> Pole Vertical 80m
>>>
>>> What feed lines are being used?
>>>
>>> How old are the feed lines?
>>>
>>> What quality of feed line is being used?
>>>
>>> How many radials are being used?
>>>
>>> Were the coax cabled installed properly?
>>>
>>> What matching systems are being used?
>>>
>>> Are there tuners being used at P33W?
>>>
>>> Could there be other losses at P33W from bandpass filters, harmonic
>>> filters, switching, etc.
>>>
>>> What power was actually being used at P33W?  Is the power limit in
>>> Cyprus 400 watts?
>>>
>>> What are the stations locations to water?  Topography, etc.
>>>
>>> There could be many other factors that affect why station a is louder
>>> than station b in the RBN network.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was the reason for looking at P3F's log to begin with? P3F's
>>> score is 4th in HP.  P3F easily wins LP with his score of 12.
>>> million.  He beats 9A5Y by 1.5 million points.  However 9A5Y beats
>>> IQ3IY by almost 2.5 million points.  Was 9A5Y's logs checked too? P3F
>>> had a great score LP.  It also appears that the competition for
>>> whatever reason in LP was not as competitive?  It was quite close from
>>> 2nd place down.   It would appear that P3F ran much more than 9A5Y who
>>> had more multipliers and almost 700 less qsos.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that P3F was able to amass 500 extra qso's
>>> by the accusation of running an amp for 10 minutes here and there.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problem with a contest chairman asking an entrant if they
>>> might have possibly classified their log incorrectly because mistakes
>>> happen.   If contest committees believe that people are cheating then
>>> provide the proof and it better be more solid than what we have heard
>>> than this and DQ them.  Reclassifying them serves no purpose other
>>> than to tell us that you "think" they might have done something.  To
>>> me that does not cut it.
>>>
>>>
>>> W0MU
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest